No PS2-like price cuts for the PS3, sez Sony

While it's no surprise that Sony's not exactly jonesing to knock a few bills off the PlayStation 3's premium price tag, it's still somewhat notable that a top exec at the company would go out on a limb and explain exactly why you won't be getting a break on one anytime soon. When asked by Game Informer whether the PlayStation 3's price cuts would be "as soon or as drastic as they were for the PlayStation 2," recently-promoted SCEA head Jack Tretton said flatly "no," adding that all the increased investment in R & D and hardware make the system "a lot more difficult to cost reduce" than the PS2. Tretton further clarified things by saying that "there's a heck of a lot more under the hood and it costs us more money to make it." Our pals at Joystiq did the math, and if that statement holds true, it looks like we won't be seeing a price reduction on the PS3 until June 4th, 2008 at the absolute earliest and, in all likelihood, not one on the level of the $299 to $199 drop the PS2 saw.

[Chris Merchant @ Jan 23rd 2007 6:06PM]

Is this news to anyone? I mean, they're loosing $XX per unit anyway- so it's not like we're really expecting it. People that want it, will cough up for it- I suppose.

Chris

[Farris @ Jan 23rd 2007 6:08PM]

Well, that sucks. There goesthe chance of me buying one.

Now, how long do you suppose it will be before a Wii price drop?...

[thegoodoldkicker @ Jan 23rd 2007 6:12PM]

Sony are losing money on each console SOLD, they losing between $200-$300, it be stupid for them to cut the PS 3. They're only out for 3 months for god sake. The xbox 360 has been out for 15 months now and there are STILL NOW PRICE CUT. Plus MS are making money on the $400 console.

even at $600 PS 3 are a bargain price. Blu ray, Next GEN gaming and a super computer all for $600 bucks. Let see apple give you a good price like the PS 3. Oh I forgot Apple charge $2 for wifi update and 600 for a second rated phone (G2).

Even a $50 phone in Japan can be use for buying train ticket and paying for bus fair, don't expect the mighty iPhone to do any of that even at $600, what joke. LOL

[Matt @ Jan 23rd 2007 6:25PM]

Tell me, exactly what kind of "super computing" are you doing with your "bargain priced" PS3?

[Arno @ Jan 23rd 2007 6:14PM]

Tsk-tsk-tsk. Someones been drinking the kool-aid!

[Jonathan Keim @ Jan 23rd 2007 6:26PM]

Sigh, I think we all know this will be the next dreamcast. I dont' know if too many will agree with me at this point.
But now that the price cuts won't come for supposedly 2 years I don't give any more chance to this console. I was looking forward to it for 3 years, but no I think inorder to see it I have to look behind me.

[Aaron @ Jan 23rd 2007 6:44PM]

PS3, the next Dreamcast?? A couple years after it was out, the DC was like $50 and had a ton of amazing exclusive games plus all sorts of homebrew going for it. A year or two ago, you could even pick one up used for $15. I only wish the PS3 will be the next Dreamcast, because that would be freakin' sweet. A cheap, fun machine. While I don't really play mine anymore, I still give my Dreamcast a loving glance every now and then.

I do know what you meant, though; a system that will die before its time. We'll see, but I suspect not. It's a little hard to believe, but plenty of people are willing to lay down $600 for one. There was some big survey on the issue, and something like 75% said they were willing to do it. I suspect it's in large part due to the PlayStation brand name, which has become the "new" Nintendo in that it's synonymous with video gaming for a great deal of people. The price doesn't matter as much as we'd like to believe, and even if there aren't many good games in the end, that won't matter either. We haven't seen the last of the mighty PlayStation.

Besides, they still haven't given us the virtual reality PS9. Anyone remember those commercials from the PS2 days?

[Bingo Shazam @ Jan 23rd 2007 6:34PM]

How hard is it to earn $100 between now and June 2008? $100 over 18 months = 19 cents per day. Less than a cup of coffee every week. If you want it, buy it.

[kamandriat @ Jan 23rd 2007 7:19PM]

of course i thought it was so cool. pop open some lil ball and some stuff would enter your nose and BAM. im a xbox fan but i hope that something like that would come soon, sony or anyone else

[Malarkey @ Jan 23rd 2007 7:31PM]

I miss the excitement in the videogame world that existed around the time of the Dreamcast. Those games were fun.

A truly revolutionary console won't exist until someone comes out with some kind of advanced 3D (spacial depth) simulation... may be a few years off... so all we're seeing now is PS2 v2.0...

I was never that impressed with PS2.

[Joshua @ Jan 23rd 2007 6:52PM]

After reading Jonathan Keim's comment, I was going to complain about the Dreamcast comment, but everything has already been said by Aaron. I still get the point, but the Dreamcast reminds me of the Super Nintendo, in that its games are just so good.

[Jimbo @ Jan 23rd 2007 6:54PM]

I cant believe you yanks still bitch about the price.. I have to pay $1000 AUD for mine = $780 US odd and you dont see me complaining.. just cause your poor broke asses cant afford one doesnt mean you have hate on the dam thing. Even your "I can afford it but its got no games" argument trying to justify the state of your empty wallet is getting thin.

You fucking complain too much. No wonder the world hates you..

[BrandonLehman @ Jan 23rd 2007 8:03PM]

I hate you too buddy. I hate you too.

[alex mazhari @ Jan 23rd 2007 9:07PM]

fuck you, we dont like you guys either.


go fucking chase a kangaroo and sell it to us so u can feed ur family bitch.

more power to america :]!

[CJ @ Jan 23rd 2007 9:54PM]

You're not nice! On top of that, the main complaint isn't that we can't afford it it's that we don't want to. Not all of us are greasy, die hard, nerd gamers that have to have the latest techology at any cost. The fact is, I can buy an XBOX 360 or a Wii and have the same amount, if not more, fun at a fraction of the cost.

[Jay T @ Jan 23rd 2007 6:56PM]

No Shit. What a pointless story.

[architect.zero @ Jan 23rd 2007 7:16PM]

Nah, the PS3 is Sony's N64.

A decent system. Perhaps slightly more powerful than its competitors, but a big let-down for the fans and the developers.

In the case of the N64, it wasn't price so much, it was the restrictive cartridge format and a much-more d3rd party unfriendly Nintendo.

For the PS3 its a slightly different combination of things: The console does indeed cost a TON of money for many people, even though the technology is incredibly attractive at that price point. But I personally believe that its the high cost of development, particularly in comparison to the competition, that's going to seriously limit the PS3.

Just as developers had to battle the Big-N and their stupid carts, today's developers have to battle the Big-S and their overly complex architecture.

For crying out loud, anyone with half and inkling of desire can download the tools to make rudimentary games for the XBox360. Nintendo's Wii dev kit is supposed to be inexpensive and very simple to get the hang of. Excited, motivated developers will create exciting games that will motivate sales of these platforms.

The PS3 is a high-concept mess. Sony has forgotten the roots of its success and has abandoned developers, and fans, by making the total cost of development and ownership more than the market will bear.

Mark my words: 2-3 years and the PS3 as we know it will be gone and Sony will be trying to bury its memory and rebuild bridges to the developers and to the consumers with a PS4 (or some such). In the meantime, MS is going to eat Sony's lunch in the "gamer" market and Nintendo is going to quietly regain the overall sales title.

[Eric @ Jan 23rd 2007 7:19PM]

I don't think the system will die like the dreamcast did but i think it will lose most of its exclusive titles to microsoft(as in MGS & FFXIII being cross platform) because of low sales of the system due to price, bargain price is hilarious though, that was a good one lol.

ps3 might be a bargain because all other bluray players are like 1G (cad) each but people who want ps3's want them to play games not movies.

[Daniel @ Jan 23rd 2007 7:22PM]

Not so much the Dreamcast as the 3DO. Just sad.

[David @ Jan 23rd 2007 7:22PM]

No price cut? Well, Sony better be prepared for a very long, expensive waiting game:

HDMI 1.3? Most people don't even have HD sets, honestly -- much less super-awesome ones that can support this format

Blu-ray? Why am I going to buy new, more expensive versions of movies I already have -- if they are even in the scant blu-ray catalog (I can't buy 1995's 'the usual suspects' until feb? ... no thanks). "If you build it they will come" ... not vice-versa. Also, see the hdmi comment. No one cares about hi-def dvd if they don't have the equipment to enjoy it. Plus, didn't I hear something about a format war? Nobody wants the 3D0 of 2006.

Gaming? Give me something that really shines better than my newish overclocked nVidia at a third of the PS3's price. I need to see a FFVII/GTA/Mario 64 type gamebreaker -- otherwise, my PS2 still plays last year's Tekken 5 very nicely(as in better than a ps3). Resistance is good, but not when people shout Halo 3 and Gears on the cheaper system next door. Give me something worth paying a substantial portion of my rent for before I get a second controller, much less a game.

Still holding out on the price, Sony? Newsflash: The first adopters have adopted and the buzz is gone (check ebay). Either realize the potential of your system or wait until the rest of us catch up. For me, buying a PS3 is akin to buying a porshe to drive on an unpaved road. I plan on buying cool stuff, but I also plan on paying my student loans.

Drop your price or drop your market share. Start with that crappy stepdown model. Oops -- looks like that has already happened in Japan.

If you stick to your guns, I'll look you up in late 2008. Good luck keeping Metal Gear a console exclusive!

[Jackson @ Jan 23rd 2007 7:27PM]

Bah, every time they interview these execs at Sony they give conflicting information. Stringer said they were launching in Europe in April last week. The average Sony fanboy has more info than these old suits. The fact is that they're selling the 20GB PS3 in Japan for way less then in the states. Why can't they do that in the US? We don't have any bonkers taxes like they have in the UK. The reason is that any price cut they make will probably be immediately matched by Microsoft. Whether or not they cut the price will have to do with a ton of strategic factors so I don't see how Joystiq could have "done the math" already. No one really knows how much money they are losing per console, how much they make per game, how valuable it is to them to win the format war, and how much money they'll make from online content, and how fast they'll ramp up production. That being said, I agree with Joystiq's estimate because there is no chance that they'll do a price cut without seeing how their AAA titles drive system sales. It is obvious that Sony would never give anyone an incentive to not buy immediately by saying that they will cut the prices. Price cuts are never announced.

[WTF @ Jan 23rd 2007 7:39PM]

Haven't you people ever heard of under promise over deliver?
It makes perfect sense for Sony to come out and say there wont be a price drop for a VERY long time and when there is, that it will be minimal: this way people that want it won't be held back by a possible price drop knowing it isn’t coming and even if it does it will be small. Once PS3 sales hit a plateau, a price drop will happen. The console hasn’t even had a XMAS season with large quantities available yet. Let the good games come out over the next 9-12 months and people will save up there money all year to get one by XMAS + people that actually have the money but don't want any hassles (lineups etc) should be able to purchase the unit, either for themselves or as gifts, quite easily as stores should have PS3's a plenty for the 2007 October-December XMAS shopping season. IMHO, it would make absolutely no sense to have a price reduction prior to spring 2008... I see a single unit (no more 2 models) with all the bells and whistles for 399.99$ US coming sometime before August 2008 (ONLY if the Zephyr is 299.99$ by then). This will probably be followed each year thereafter by 50.00$ drops until it reaches 199.99$ in 2012. Good news is, in 2015 when they come out with the Playstation 4, and it will still have a BluRay drive (perhaps one capable or reading 6 layer 200gig discs... should still only cost 25$) and the whole system will probably cost only 299.99$. Sony had to take a bullet for BluRay in 2006 and they can thank Microsoft for having come out with a video game system that's 400.00$... this way a 500.00$ one doesn’t look THAT crazy. I think Sony will probably have to thank Microsoft again this year because I have a feeling that the new Zephyr will be 400.00$ with a bigger hard drive and HDMI and the current 400.00$ model will go down to 300.00$.... but with the Zephyr out, nobody is going to want the old unit and Sony is still only 100.00$ more then the competition but there hardware is superior and includes a High Def movie player in the BluRay.

P.S. The 300$ XBOX 360 is crippled and useless (most gamers know that) but the 500.00$ PS3 gives you everything you need.

[Castle @ Jan 23rd 2007 7:51PM]

And what idiot executive is going to tell people that there is a price cut soon so people not buy it at the higher price point?

[MR @ Jan 23rd 2007 7:51PM]

As a consumer, why do I care how much Sony's losing for each console? All I care is how much I have to pay. And I just want a reasonably priced console with GAMES to play on.
As a matter of fact, I never really looked at the console prices since SNES. I just bought them, period. But with PS3, I was like "$600?!? Alright, maybe okay if there're games. What?!? Only some crappy games so far? Well, maybe later then".

[doughboy04690 @ Jan 23rd 2007 8:08PM]

There as no way they were going to be able to cut the price and still make a profit overall. We must remeber that they already lose a bunch of money every time they sell one of the consoles. I guess they figure that they are already losing enough money and why would they want to lose anymore. Also the 360 is 100 times better than the PS3 as it can do everything that the PS3 can. And all the people that try to support that the PS3 is better becuase of true HD and HDMI are really dumb and should read up and then comment. You really cant tell the difference between 1080i and 1080p unless you have a fairly large screen or you sit very close to the screen. Xbox 360 wins.

http://www.m1nor.com Check it out.

[walk2k @ Jan 23rd 2007 8:10PM]

Actually mid-next year sounds about right. It hasn't even been out 2 months, were people really expecting a price-cut "soon"??

[Nate @ Jan 23rd 2007 8:32PM]

The 20gb model is selling for 39,800 yen in Japan RIGHT NOW. That's, what like 320 US dollars? Why are they charging us 500 bucks for the same hardware?

[NONE @ Jan 24th 2007 10:20PM]

Worst. Console. Release. EVER.

When was the last time you saw a "hot new console" available on shelves in the JANUARY following a release for the prior year's holiday season.

I can promise everyone one thing... the reason I can go to any electronics store and pick up a PS3 isn't due to Sony'd manufacturing capacity! I *still* can't find a Wii!!!

Sony has released a mediocre system with very few games at a price the general public is not willing to pay.

Sony has really screwed up.

[shirizaki @ Jan 23rd 2007 9:59PM]

You know what would cut the price?

If they stopped making 2 versions of it. If they just stopped making a $500 version, put a $40 GB HD instead of a 60 in the mremium, and sold it for $450 you'd have alot more people buying it without taking a huge loss per console.

I only say this since it seems they only ship the 60GB anymore. It would be more cost effective to market built in wifi, card slots, and next gen disc format for only $50 more than the 360. And free online to boot.

But what do i know? I'm only a person stating the obvious.

[Frank @ Jan 23rd 2007 11:48PM]

Answer me this... why does the PS3 cost so much more than the XBOX360?!! The games look the same! (and 360 was developed with "older" technology) Terrible move by Sony.

[Frank @ Jan 23rd 2007 11:49PM]

You morons can pay $600 for your PS3. And to the Aussie who says we Americans complain too much.. shut the F*ck up and go put another shrimp on barbe. Nothing good has EVER come out of your third rate country.

[Irfan @ Jan 24th 2007 1:16AM]

the price diff isnt as great if you pay for xbox live. granted xbox live is better than sonys free online gaming... but sonys is free. a year of live is what... 60 bucks? 3 years of owning a 360 and your almost at the ps3 price. tho coughing up 600 upfront is worse that 400 + $60/year its still more comparable than most think.

im sure theyve run their analyses and compared how many units would be sold at a loss at a certain price point compared to how many they need to sell in order to make the profits back on the games, and they probably came up with around $600.

losing $240 per ps3 is huge but they need to take the hit to get the console in the market and hope to recover losses on game sales. sell 100,000 units @ 240 loss = -$24,000,000. if they make $20/game that means they need 12games per person that buys a ps3. ($-240 per console / +$20 per game)

if they drop the price to $450 right now thats a $390 loss per console. they would be losing even more money, and then would need to sell a ton more games to make up the cost difference. if selling at $450 makes them sell 150,000 units, then they lose $58,500,000 over 150,000 units, and need to sell 19.5 games per console to break even. (-$390 per console/+$20 per game)

yes the math is simplistic and does not account for economies of scale, and no i dont know that $20 is how much they make per game and it doesnt include accessories profits which are usually pretty good, but the theory is still reasonable. eventually they will be able to sell the console at a profit and recoup their losses, but they are facing some serious losses up front and no company wants to make that even worse.

their problem was that they are using such new technology that people just arent sold on yet. if it lasts a few years and they finally make money per console then it will turn into a cash cow, but im sure they are aware of the risks they've taken. they need to hope they didnt alienate enough gamers with a steep price tag, not all gamers can afford $600 and sony cant just say "then its not for you" or "serious gamers will save up".

[h0mi @ Jan 24th 2007 2:19AM]

"the price diff isnt as great if you pay for xbox live. granted xbox live is better than sonys free online gaming... but sonys is free."

You get what you pay for.

seriously, I've heard nobody say anything good about Sony's online service except for kool aid drinking ps3 fanboys. Are there even 40 people online at a time so you can play a 40 man deathmatch game in Resistance?

[pixelbender @ Jan 24th 2007 2:51AM]

I paid $38 for a 13-month LIVE card shipped on eBay. That equates to $105.23 for 3 years of service (assuming that price doesn't drop in the next three years).

Face it, we're suckers for shiny graphics but we ain't buying the farm.

Sony could have launched the PS3 at the same 360 price point and it would have sold, with or without the blu-ray (perhaps even a little more b/c of BR). They could have had more BR players out there to lean the format wars....

Oh well, idiots.

[Shamma @ Jan 24th 2007 3:34AM]

Sony has really dropped the ball on this console.

1a. It is not better than the 360 in any way.

1b. The hype of the graphical superiority of the PS3 was all lies. Sony planned on having the processer handle all graphics, but it didn't work. So, now they are using a video card that is pretty much the same as the 360's

2a. Cost way too much, and what makes that worse is point #1

2b. Most high school kids and college students can't afford it, and those are the people buying video games. Most of the people, that I know that had PS2's are not the type of people to spend $600 plus the price of controllers and games. And for the most part, you can forget about parents buying them for their kids.


3. The 360 is a step ahead in the developement cycle So not only will it have more games the will have better graphics.


4. blu-ray is losing the format war. No porn.


5. The 360 will see a price cut by next Christmas, and that will put the final nail in the PS3's coffin. You will be able to get just as good a console at half the price with more games available.

[MagusDF @ Jan 24th 2007 10:08AM]

Not like anyone would be surprised. It would be a huge kick to the balls of anyone who just recently purchased one if they were talking about dropping the price. and at 600$ it would be just enough wind to deter a lot of potetnial buyers.

[Thomas @ Jan 24th 2007 1:08PM]

There are some ways to definitely make this system cheaper right now.. for instance... they could drop the ps2 chipset from the system and lose the backwards compatibility (which they are going to do once they perfect the software to perform the function), drop the card slots, Wifi... granted you don't have much left, besides a blu ray drive, and a hard drive, however... the set might be considerably cheaper... but I don't know if many would be willing to sacrifice so much..

[kiwiNick @ Jan 24th 2007 2:35PM]

Sony is Fvcked.

I dont want to play Tekken 6, Ridge Racer 7. I got bored of that sht when it was on PS2.

These MULTI sequels are fun for 5 minutes.

If you are a "hardcore' gamer you'd know that you forget about GFX after 20 minutes of playing, (unless they are really really bad). Its the 'feel' of the game that matters.

360 can do everything PS3 can, for half the price.

NZ$1300 for PS3!!! WTF?

Get a Wii and relive the excitment you used to get playing NES, SNES and PSX.

[myscrnnm @ Jan 24th 2007 5:22PM]

"It is not better than the 360 in any way."

That is so wrong in so many ways I don't even know where to begin.

The Xbox 360 uses a 3.2 GHz triple-core PowerPC-based CPU, whereas the PlayStation 3 uses a 3.2GHz eight-core Cell processor with a PowerPC controller core. It's been proven that the Cell processor used in the PlayStation 3 has more than twice the FLOPS of the Xbox 360's Xenon CPU, thus making it more than 100% more powerful.

The PlayStation 3 also uses a 550MHz NVIDIA-made Reality Synthesizer GPU, which is 50% more powerful than the Xbox 360's ATI-developed Xenos GPU. Not to mention the PlayStation 3's processors have access to 256MB of 3.2GHz XDR DRAM (in addition to the 700MHz GDDR3 RAM), whereas the Xbox 360 only uses 700MHz GDDR3.

With the PlayStation 3, you also have more connectivity options. The standard controllers use Bluetooth 2.0 with EDR, whereas the Xbox 360's controllers use an older technology, resulting in lower transfer rates, and consequently, lag. While the Xbox 360 can output HDTV resolutions via component AV, the PlayStation 3 can also use HDMI, which results in a higher-quality digital signal.

In terms of the software library, the PlayStation 3 is backwards compatible with more than 97% of PlayStation and PlayStation 2 games. On the other hand, the Xbox 360 is only backwards compatible with around 30% of Xbox games at the moment. Besides Gears of War, Halo, and Dead or Alive, the Xbox 360 also has very few good exclusives, whereas the PlayStation 3 will have Gran Turismo 5, Final Fantasy XIII, Metal Gear Solid 4: Guns of the Patriots, et cetera.

There is a lot more stuff on how the PlayStation 3 is superior to the Xbox 360, but this is enough to pwn the Xbox 360. I think the Xbox 360 is alright, but it is by no means better than the PlayStation 3.

[Bill @ Jan 24th 2007 6:30PM]

No PS2-like buying for the PS3, sez I

[h0mi @ Jan 24th 2007 11:51PM]

Regarding compatibility, a friend of mine bought & returned a PS3 because none of the ps2 games he bought worked; he said he got a message saying something about requiring a rumble controller & the games all refused to work on the ps3. Did my friend miss something?

[T.H. @ Jan 26th 2007 3:03AM]

@ myscrnnm @ Jan 24th 2007 5:22PM

"The Xbox 360 uses a 3.2 GHz triple-core PowerPC-based CPU, whereas the PlayStation 3 uses a 3.2GHz eight-core Cell processor with a PowerPC controller core. It's been proven that the Cell processor used in the PlayStation 3 has more than twice the FLOPS of the Xbox 360's Xenon CPU, thus making it more than 100% more powerful."

You do realize that more cores does not equate to more power if it is difficult to work with, or if not more difficult takes more time to work with the extra cores. Not to mention that the SPE's in the Cell processor are more specialized cores and will not be able to handle the larger number of tasks that the more generalized cores used in the Xbox 360.

One can argue that with twice the FLOPS in the Cell CPU, it's flopping twice as hard as the PS3. Processing power is not everything. Having more FLOPS (if you even know what the heck that means) does not mean your processor is better than someone else's. Modern day GPU's are extremely powerful for the tasks they are set to do and can crunch a huge number of FLOPS. Much more than modern CPU's. You still wouldn't want to use a GPU as your CPU since they positively suck for generalized computing. It can be done, you just don't want them for that purpose.

"The PlayStation 3 also uses a 550MHz NVIDIA-made Reality Synthesizer GPU, which is 50% more powerful than the Xbox 360's ATI-developed Xenos GPU. Not to mention the PlayStation 3's processors have access to 256MB of 3.2GHz XDR DRAM (in addition to the 700MHz GDDR3 RAM), whereas the Xbox 360 only uses 700MHz GDDR3."

Completely different GPU architectures and it's inherently different to compare different consoles. The best one can do is to go by game screenshots of the same game but ported to both consoles as well as the best games graphically one can find for both systems. The best that can be said so far of such comparisons is that the PS3 edges the Xbox 360 slightly and some would argue both are roughly the same. Mhz is nothing if AMD Athlon vs Intel P4 hasn't proven that already.

"With the PlayStation 3, you also have more connectivity options. The standard controllers use Bluetooth 2.0 with EDR, whereas the Xbox 360's controllers use an older technology, resulting in lower transfer rates, and consequently, lag. While the Xbox 360 can output HDTV resolutions via component AV, the PlayStation 3 can also use HDMI, which results in a higher-quality digital signal."

Having used the Xbox 360 controllers, there's nothing wrong with them and certainly not the lag you speak of. There is always lag in any controller system whether wired or wireless but if it's not noticeable, then it's ok. I can tell from personal experience there is nothing wrong with the Xbox 360 controllers. Older technology does not mean inferior technology. The wheel is arguably one of the oldest technological discoveries ever but it's certainly not obsolete even at this point. You neglect to mention the resolution glitch of the PS3 which results in inferior graphical output. Component is not as inferior as you make it out to be, do a Google search for "component vs hdmi" if you don't believe me. At best, HDMI edges out component slightly and I do mean slightly.

"In terms of the software library, the PlayStation 3 is backwards compatible with more than 97% of PlayStation and PlayStation 2 games. On the other hand, the Xbox 360 is only backwards compatible with around 30% of Xbox games at the moment. Besides Gears of War, Halo, and Dead or Alive, the Xbox 360 also has very few good exclusives, whereas the PlayStation 3 will have Gran Turismo 5, Final Fantasy XIII, Metal Gear Solid 4: Guns of the Patriots, et cetera."

I won't comment too much on the backwards compatibility but it's the one valid argument you've had in your whole entire post.

"There is a lot more stuff on how the PlayStation 3 is superior to the Xbox 360, but this is enough to pwn the Xbox 360. I think the Xbox 360 is alright, but it is by no means better than the PlayStation 3."

Please enlighten us with how the PS3 is superior to the Xbox 360. As far as I can see while the PS3 is the more powerful system, it is not 50% more powerful as you try to claim. I would put it along the lines of perhaps 10-20% more powerful at best. Enough to be noticed in _well_ programmed platform exclusives where you code exclusively for one platform but in cross platform titles there will hardly be any difference. But the differences even in exclusives for both consoles will be slight.

I do have a Wii and 360 in the house. I chose not to get a PS3 at this time even though I have a PSP, PS2, and PS1 (multiple PS2's and PS1's due to them breaking). Hardly a fanboy of any specific console and if you must call me a fanboy, I'd say it's to Nintendo games. Not necessarily Nintendo consoles, just some of the kick ass games they've entertained me with for roughly two decades.

[Diceburna @ Jan 28th 2007 8:26PM]

First off let me begin with this quote:

"Sony Corporation or Sonī Kabushiki-gaisha is a multinational corporation and one of the world's largest media conglomerates and electronics manufacturers with revenue of $68.39 billion (as of 2006) based in Shinagawa, Tokyo. Sony is one of the leading manufacturers of electronics, video, communications, video games, and information technology products for the consumer and professional markets."
Wikipedia

The ps3 is marketed to hardcore PS3 gamers who couldnt wait until next yr. PPl like me buy Sony products b/c "Sony is one of the leading manufacturers of electronics, video, communications, video games, and information technology products for the consumer and professional markets"

Until Nintendo, Microsoft, etc reaches this point I dont even want to see ppl dissin Sony. To me these companies will most likely tank before Sony does b/c theyre limted to specific consumer industries. If there's a company that have next gen potential its defintely Sony.